First they limit the discussion. This one didn't ask the obvious question "Does the government have any business checking into my background in the first place if I want to buy a gun?" and

If they show what the liberal organization wants to show then they are ballyhooed about. If they show that Americans believe in freedom rather than unlimited totalitarianiasm, then the the media either buries them, alters the results, or claims that sites like FR exerted undue influence.

A couple of years ago there was a BBC poll on some gun related issue. I was checking it ever hour or so. The pro-gun side was steadily pulling ahead, when all of a sudden there was a vast influx of votes all on the anti-gun side. I assume the BBC web site sysop was told to skew the results, because about twice as many anti-gun votes went in during the course of an hour than the total of all cast in the previous 6 hours or so.

33
posted on 01/26/2004 9:40:09 AM PST
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

. However, it appears that the poll question is worded for an anti-gun advantage.

It's kind of like what the fanatically anti-gun Atlanta paper has done in the past when posting "debates" on the gun issue. Pick an extreme anti-gun position and more extreme antigun position and "debate" the "merits" of the two.

36
posted on 01/26/2004 10:11:14 AM PST
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)

I can find nothing fixing the number of dollars to the grain of gold, or any other metal. (Silver was also used for coins)

This is what I was thinking of when I wrote what I did - The Coinage Act of 1792: Congress defined the dollar as being 371.25 grains of silver. It then regulated the value of gold coins at 24.75 grains. This means you could exchange 15 grains of silver for every grain of gold.

Nevertheless, the Constitution didn't give Congress the power to delegate its authority to define the dollar and regulate its value to a third party bank otherwise known as the Federal Reserve.

"the Constitution didn't give Congress the power to delegate its authority to define the dollar and regulate its value to a third party bank otherwise known as the Federal Reserve.

Well, you're right about that. In fact, if you've ever read any of the Founding Father's writings on this subject, the concept of a central bank was hated and feared as being inherently tyrannical in nature.

I love this stuff. For anyone still skeptical that the gun-control advocates intend to gain their ends through incrementalism, this is a perfect example. The one stipulation for passing this legislation was that this information be destroyed. Now all of a sudden it's negotiable. The answer is a resounding "no."

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.